Reading 1: Numbers 35

v. 20,21 - What a responsibility to be the avenger of blood. You had to kill a man - that was bad enough, but you had to kill a person who had wronged someone close enough to you for you to be the avenger of his blood, without hatred. What an amazing requirement. Our thoughts go back to Cain, who killed out of jealous hatred. Gen. 4:5,8. Joab, 2Sam.3:27 follows this law, and is therefore justified in killing Abner for the blood of Asahel.

v.10 - The human side of the pressure of his punishment must have been really gruelling for Moses. Those who aspire to such heights as he can fall with just one mistake. This action of instructing the people from God about what they should do when they possess the land must have been irksome to that side of him that must have felt the most bitter disappointment at his own non-inclusion. We most certainly have so much we can learn from this man.

35:25,28 That the man slayer was to remain in the city until the death of the high priest before he was allowed to go free typifies the saving work of Jesus. That is why we have 'fled for refuge' (Hebrews 6:18).

:33 The way in which man slayers are to be dealt with has an effect upon the land. Not in a literal sense as if the spilling of blood on the land would corrupt the physical land. Rather the way in which God's laws were applied affected the way in which the heathen round about viewed the God of Israel. (Deuteronomy 4:6)

The difference between pre-meditated murder and manslaughter is likewise distinguished in western law today.

David asked Solomon to deal with Shimei (1 Kings 2:8,9) Solomon used the same principle of safety by isolation.

However, Solomon, in his wisdom, knew that such a man as Shimei would, sooner or later, betray himself (1 Kings 2:36-46). Thus the avenger was justified.

V.30 No witnesses could condemn Jesus, not even false ones (Matt 26:59-63). It was only the utterance of Jesus Himself that gave the opening to the high priest to facilitate the process which Jesus knew he must undertake (Matt 26:64,65).

35:19 That the avenger of blood was to execute the judgement teaches an important lesson. If we have matter with a brother or sister we should talk to that brother or sister ourselves. This is the first step. We should not seek to get another to deal with the matter unless our first approach is unsuccessful - and then we go with the person or persons who take up the matter Matt 18:15-16

V.6 This is first of three times that the function and operation of the cities of refuge are outlined for us. The first three of these sanctuaries were appointed on the east side of Jordon by Moses. The next three in Canaan, were dedicated to this purpose by Joshua (Jesus). Here are foreshadowed the Old and New Covenants, bringing Divine privilege to both Jew and Gentile.

It's interesting to note that whereas we do read of the Levites living in their cities, we do not read
(I think), of the Cities of Refuge being used. Does this point to the fact that before Christ came sin was not taken away. Then, when "The High Priest" (Jesus) died, God's love and mercy shone through, and repentant sinners are forgiven.

35:2Amidst the joy of receiving their inheritance Moses is concerned to remind the people of their responsibilities to the Levites.It is so easy, when things are going well for us, to forget the needs of others.

V.2 As the Levites were to have no territorial domain allocated to them like the other tribes, once they conquered the Land of Cannon. They were to be distributed through out the land certain cities, and these cities were to be surrounded by extensive suburbs (green areas). It would appear that this land would have been a common area for the pasturing of the cattle

35:1Remember by this time Israel have taken control of the land to the East of Jordan – so they had experienced that God was with them and as such they could defeat His enemies. This should have served as a great encouragement as they entered the land of Canaan.

Vs.4,5 There seems to be confusion between these two verses regarding the amount of land that the Levites should possess. In v.4, 1000 cubits from the city wall, in all directions, is given. But, in v.5, 2000 cubits are given, in the KJV. In the Hebrew text, v.4 clearly notes 1000 (one thousand) cubits. But in v.5, the text just reads thousands without its being qualified by a cardinal number.

Maimonides (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, 1135-1204) suggests that the first 1000 cubits from the wall of the city would be for suburbs; the next 2000 would be for fields and vineyards.

35:2 The words ‘suburbs’ <04054> is always translated this way. However we should not draw the conclusion that it means what we tend to think of suburbs – an area of houses around a town or city. The word from which it is derived is often translated ‘drive out’ so we see that the word is descriptive of an area, which by implication, is devoid of things. The ‘suburbs’ then would have been areas for farming – keeping of cattle and growing of crops. Now actually this is obvious from the next verse however it is valuable to establish a Biblical use of a word when the English into which it is translated carries a different meaning form that which the original language carries.

35:15 The city of refuge points to the freedom from the consequence of sin through belief in Jesus. The way that the provision was ‘both for the children of Israel, and for the stranger, and for the sojourner among them’ highlighted to Israel that God’s offer of salvation is for all, whether Jew of non Jew.

35:8 The way in which the cities for the Levites were to be distributed ensured that there were priests evenly distributed throughout the whole of the land so that no one would be able to say that he did not have access to Godly teaching.

The Levites were not given a piece of land within the boundaries of Israel as their inheritance. Instead the Levites were scattered throughout the land and were given various cities within the areas of the other tribes.

This is what the children of Israel were told: "In all you must give the Levites forty-eight towns, together with their pasture lands. The towns you give the Levites from the land the Israelites possess are to be given in proportion to the inheritance of each tribe: Take many town from a tribe that has many, but few from the one that has few." (Num 35:7-8) The result of this would be that the Levites would be relatively evenly distributed around the land of Israel. This was good because the role of the Levites was to be the part of Israel that worked for God. In the wilderness the were in charge of the Tabernacle. In the land, we can assume that they were there to teach and to encourage the rest of the people to serve the LORD.

In many ways, we have a similar role today. God has not gathered all the believers into one big city, but has spread us around the various cities and towns of the world so that we can shine God's light for others to see. So let us do our bit in the corner of the world God has given us to shine in.

35:10-14 The outlining of the 6 cities of refuge – though not naming them yet – is given here so that the law regarding the person who accidentally kills someone can be laid out. There is no need to know the names of the cities until Israel are in the land.

Levite cities of refuge would have the same area of suburbs as all the other Levite cities described in v2-5. This was very important for the manslayer living there, because he wasn't able to go outside the border of the city (v26). If the border of the city was just the walled city itself, he would have no means to work and feed himself and his family. If we interpret the "border of the city" to mean the edge of the suburbs, which belonged to the city of Levites, then this meant he could work on the land in safety. I think this makes sense of the logical order of this chapter, and shows to us what the daily life of someone who had killed someone by accident may have been like.

35:26-27 The way that the requirement to stay in the city is used by Solomon – though not with respect to a city of refuge – when he dealt with Shimei who cast stones at and cursed David – 1Kin 2:36-44

V. 8 In the cities that were given to the Levites, it is interesting to see that the cities were to be allocated based upon the inheritance given to each tribe which was based upon the size of the tribe at the time they entered the land. It was not equally divided so that the tribes with less members received less of an inheritance. It is interesting in the census of Num 1 which was taken in Sinai just after departure from Egypt, Simeon was the third largest tribe with 59,300 but in the census of Num. 26 taken after the sin of Baal Peor and just before Israel entered into the promised land Simeon was the smallest at 22,200. There are other changes plus and minus but this would have dramatically effected tribes like Simeon and Ephraim, Were these tribes more involved in the sins along the way that their inheritance was diminished?

35:25 The cities of refuge were cities for the priests. When a man slayer was to be delivered to the revenger of blood the decision was not the decision of one man. The whole population of the city were to assent to the handing over of the man.

35:2 The Levites had no inheritance in the land – Num 18:23 – Moses had spoken of dividing the land – Num 33:54 – leaving the Levites out of the dividing. So now the provision for the Levites is now spoken of.

35:22-23 God recognises that men have tempers that can flare up. However whilst actions consequent on a fit of rage are not like pre-meditated murder they are crimes, none-the-less. Remaining in the city of refuge until the death of the high priest is a form of imprisonment. Though the man in the city of refuge would have to be involved in the society of that city.

Reading 2: Proverbs 26

v. 12 - The phrase 'wise in his own conceit' is a direct reference to the man who feels that he can manage without God - this is the ultimate in denying God's power and therefore fits the category of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which is unforgivable (Matt.12:31-32). The fool is therefore better off than that. See also Rom.12:16, 1Cor.3:18,19, Rev.3:17.

v. 7 'parable' is the word translated 'proverb' This indicates that the understanding of parables and proverbs is not for 'fools'. They are designed for the 'wise' that is those who are 'instructed unto the kingdom of God' [Matthew 13:52]

:11 The description of the dog's behaviour which is typical of the dog advertises the way in which folly begets more folly. Once one is set on a course of foolishness it becomes more and more easy to continue in that way. Peter 2 Peter 2:22 says these words are relevant to brothers and sisters in Christ so we cannot dismiss the words just because they are in the Proverbs.

WISE IN YOUR OWN EYES
"Do you see a man wise in his own eyes?
There is more hope for a fool than for him."
The beginning of this chapter of proverbs is a real fool bashing section. Solomon almost seems to go out of his way to denounce fools with the strongest pictures he can - cutting off your own feet, tying a stone in a sling, a thorn-bush in the hand of a drunkard, a dog returning to it's vomit - all describe fools in their particular actions. But there is more hope for a fool than for the person who is wise in his own eyes. The person who is wise in his own eyes is unteachable. They are the opposite of the quality of meekness that God desires of us. They are proud, never listening, always believing that their opinion is the best, and forgetting that the source of all knowledge and wisdom comes from their creator, the LORD God of heaven and earth. There is hope for a fool because a fool can learn and change. But the man who is wise in his own eyes has, as far as he is concerned, already made it.
We need an antidote to this dreadful disease. Pray for wisdom - real wisdom, God's wisdom. Be humble and never compare our wisdom with the wisdom of men, but rather with the wisdom of God. Read Job 38 - 40 and discover for yourself that God alone is wise.

26:1-12 The recurring word in these verses is 'fool'. The characteristics of the man void of understanding in the things of God is described. The end of that man is that he becomes a 'slothful' man and a 'sluggard'Prov 26:13-16

V.17 We all recognize the danger of holding a dog by the ears, or the letting him go, so success in another man's strife or failure involves a useless risk of reputation, does no good, and in the long run we may suffer. Note: Prov 20:19, Prov 24:21

Vs.4,5 seem contradictory. They are both valid depending upon their applications. A fool is essentially one who is not practising God's laws. Whether to respond to such a person depends upon the attitude of that person. For example:

Jesus did not respond to the high priest (Matt 26:62,63) because He knew that the high priest was oppositional to the Truth and did not desire to change.

On the other hand, Paul challenged the foolishness of Peter's actions (Gal 2:14) because Peter was interested in serving the Lord but needed to be corrected.

"I could do that job"
"If I were running this company, I'd make a better job of it!"
"If I were him, I wouldn't do it that way!"
"If only they'd let me do [such and such], I'd show them a thing or two!"

In verse 16 we have described for us yet another problem with the lazy man. The problem is that he is wise in his own eyes. In fact, he is wiser than 7 people who actually answer wisely! Why is that? Why does Solomon link folly with laziness in this way? The statements above are typical of the comments we may make ourselves, or hear others making. There is a consistent problem with those statements, which is in common with the problem of the lazy man.

So what is it? Well, the problem is that the people saying those things actually have no intention of doing what they say. They are pulling down someone else's wisdom with statements that they could do better, yet will never get round to proving it. This position is a very safe one for a fool. He may believe in his own mind that he is capable of doing all sorts of things. He may believe he is extremely wise, or very skilled at something, and as long as he doesn't actually try to put this into practice, he'll never have to believe otherwise!

The attitude of this lazy, foolish man, can often be traced back to his own low self esteem. In verses 13-16 we have a scathing and laughable description of his incompetence, lack of wisdom, and lack of effort, yet amazingly it ends up in his own pride in himself! How is this possibly explained, except when we look at it in the terms of his self esteem? This man is so low that he's not able to get out of bed (v14). He's so depressed that he can't get out of the house (v13). Even when he manages to put some effort into his life, he can't actually bring himself to finish it because he believes himself incapable(v15). The human being, faced with such a picture of itself, will usually compensate for this by inflating its ego (v16). The process of comparing oneself with the flaws in others is the way that this is achieved. We persuade ourselves that if only we were to have the opportunity, we could be quite great!

The lesson for us is to notice this tendency in ourselves. When we are in this state we ought not to listen to our own ego or inflated self esteem. We should judge ourselves by our actions, rather than by what we hope to do, plan to do, or think we are able to do. When we realise that we are actually just being lazy, then we can quickly rectify the situation by getting up and DOING something. Even doing something menial is better than sitting around dreaming about great things!

"As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly" (Prov 26:11)

The beauty of many of the proverbs is that they take principles for living and give them a graphic equivalent. A comparison like this helps us to understand what the principle is really about, and the dog returning to it's vomit is no exception.

It turns our stomach's when we watch it happen: A dog brings up it's breakfast and it is left in a smelly pile on the grass. Then, no sooner has it been thrown up then the dog returns to it and devours it again. The picture Solomon describes here disgusts us, yet we can sometimes be found doing the same things ourselves. But surely we wouldn't do anything as disgusting as what the dog has just done?!!!??!

Each one of us has little sinful habits or even big sinful temptations that we know are wrong. We know we should keep ourselves pure for the LORD our God, but it is too easy to return to those habits or temptations and to repeat those sins over again. At those times we are like a fool repeating his folly. God is watching and when he sees us repeating our past sins it disgusts him as much as it disgusts us to see a dog returning to it's vomit.

Once is enough. Once we have put a sin behind us, let us never return to it.

Farmers neither expect nor appreciate unseasonable weather. Prov 26:1 says that just as rain will put a real hindrance on the harvest, and thereby endanger the food supply for the coming year, so honour is not seemly for a fool. We must be very careful whom we applaud.

26:3 Each of the items spoken of in this verse is for exercising control. However the ‘fool’ will not respond to the ‘rod’ He simply passes on uncorrected. The sad thing about the ‘fool’ is that he does not even recognise his folly. That is why the chastening hand of God is of no value to the ‘fool’ We must take care that we are ‘exercised’ – Heb 12:11 - by God’s chastening or we will be fools also.

V.17 There exist many people who like to meddle in other people’s affairs. If they don’t mind their own business, they run the risk of an adverse reaction The GNB puts it this way: Getting involved in an argument that is none of your business is like going down the street and grabbing a dog by the ears. One will surely be bitten.

27:4-6 These seemingly contradictory proverbs are not contradicting each other at all. Firstly we must remember that there is a spiritual significance in all the Proverbs. They are not simply a collection of pithy sayings with an immediate surface meaning. Like Jesus’ parables they need to be ‘searched out’. There are three other occasions – all in Proverbs – where fool and folly occur together. Prov 13:16, 17:12 , 26:11 from which we can see that associating with a fools is unwise. Against this background we understand that ‘answering a fool according to his folly’ is tantamount to agreeing with him so he will see you as supporting his ideas. And answering him ‘not according to his folly’ is designed to show the fool that you are not supporting his folly. Fools will not listen so there is no benefit in trying to change his opinion. Rather one’s answer should be designed to highlight our position.

V.2 An unjust curse is like the birds that flutter about but do not land anywhere. The curse might float around the neighbourhood for a while but it will not have any impact. At some point it will just disappear like the birds which fly away.

V.12 If one is wise in their own eyes they have no need for any other advice. Therefore, they cannot be approached with Yahweh’s wisdom. That is unfortunate because divine wisdom surpasses worldly wisdom (1Cor 3:19).

V.18,19 Some people say or do hurtful things and then turn around and say: I was only kidding. But, the damage is done.

V.23 The ESV translates this verse:Like the glaze covering an earthen vessel are fervent lips with an evil heart.

V.27 is reflected in Psa 7:15. Any maliciousness committed will eventually befall the perpetrator.

Michael Parry and Peter Forbes in previous comments explained the paradox of Prov 26:4-5. The KJV translates almost cryptically, "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." Perhaps the New English Bible captures the sense better, "Do not answer a stupid man in the language of his folly, or you will grow like him. Answer a stupid man as his folly deserves or he will think himself a wise man." - 1Pet 3:9;1Pet 2:21-23;1Tim 4:16;Col 4:6.

The above was gleaned from Balancing The Book (p.1-4) by Len Richardson.

26:7,9 The word ‘parable’ <04912> is the word translated ‘proverb’ Parables – Proverbs – are for wise men. Not for fools. Foolishness is not some mental weakness. Rather it shows a lack of spiritual perception. That is a parable separates between those who want to understand the things of God from those who do not – those who are blind. This is how Jesus explains why he told parables – proverbs. Matt 13:14-15

Verses 4-5 are not contradictions, but a parallelism where one idea builds on another, the second thought being related to the first. Whether we use the principle of verse 4, or use the principle of verse 5 depends on the situation. It is best to ignore negligible issues that are designed to draw us into a type of discourse that genders strife lest we stoop to their level. On the other hand, serious issues like denying there is a God (Psa 14:1), we are to respond with words of rebuke. Otherwise, our silence may be taken as consent and the fool becomes conceited. These passages are complementary and present two sides of the same coin.

The uninformed, misinformed, or chloroformed critics love to point out how the Bible contradicts itself here one verse right after the other. If such were the case, we would have to believe that the Holy Spirit inspired writer of Proverbs was so ignorant not to notice he contradicted a verse he had just written (see 1Kin 4:29)! Solomon was teaching how difficult it is to deal with a fool, and if any of us have ever dealt with Bible critics, then we know the veracity of his words.

26:13-14 It is almost unimaginable that a man could be so idle that he makes unrealistic claims to avoid activity or is too idle to even bestir himself into action. However these rather extreme examples are designed to cause us to reflect upon the excuses that we make for inactivity when we see that there is a task that need to be fulfilled. Such inactivity is sin James says – James 4:17

v. 2 - "As the bird wandering, as the swallow flying, so the curse causeless shall not come."

v. 6 - "He that sends a message by the hand of a fool cuts off the feet and drinks damage."

v. 8 - "As he that binds a stone in a sling, so is he that gives honor to a fool."

v. 22 - "The words of a talebearer are as wounds, and they go down into the innermost parts of the belly."

v. 23 - "Burning lips and a wicked heart are like a potsherd covered with silver dross."

What is the basic meaning of each of these?

v. 2. The R.V. identifies the first bird as a sparrow, and the sparrow is known not to settle anywhere for longer than a moment. And the swallow, in the midst of migration - and Israel is a busy crossroads - also doesn't stay for any length of time. So the effect of the curse when given by a fool should be only momentary. For once the receiver realizes it is only a fool giving it, then it can be shrugged off.

v.6. Two analogies here. If someone sends a message by means of a fool, that would be equivalent to cutting off one's own feet - therefore no success in getting the word to others. For the second, it's as if the sender has drunk something that disagrees with him. So what might God feel when men, in His Name, presume upon themselves to preach a different gospel message than what is true!

v. 8. The point here has to do with the amount of damage that a properly aimed stone from a sling can inflict - think of David and Goliath! So when a fool is exalted to a position of honor and trust, there inevitably will be great damage that will result. In the New Testament letters - 1 Tim. 3 & Titus 1 - Paul gives specific criteria that should be considered before any brother takes the role of bishop or deacon (actual meanings - overseer and minister).

v. 22. A couple of possible meanings here. The more obvious is that the talebearer's victim - once news of the nasty gossip reaches his ears - feels almost as though he has been poisoned or, at the least, has eaten something that disagrees with him. Another possibility comes from the R.V. translation - "The words of a whisperer are as dainty morsels...". So if this is the idea, then the writer is referring to the ones who are hearing these things - what one writer calls "spicy tidbits of malicious gossip" - savoring them over and over in their vivid imagination. Whether this is the writer's intent or not is hard to know for sure, but it surely fits our sinful human natures to a tee, doesn't it?

v. 23 . Here is the same situation as v. 22 but having to do now with the gossiper himself.

"I'm telling you this because I think it's in the best interests of all concerned that you should know about it."

But the vessel is of the cheapest, coarsest earthenware, but all dressed up to look like one of some high quality. And the veneer is really only silver dross and not of any true value. Jesus makes similar points with his condemnation of the scribes and Pharisees with his analogies of the outside cleanness of cups and dishes being filled with greed and self-indulgence. And also the whitewashed tombs being filled with dead men's bones and all uncleanness. He then tells them on the inside you are filled with hypocrisy and wickedness (Matt 23:25-28). So the exhortational point is - beware when the conversation begins to go in that direction and understand it for what it really is and not for what the speaker is claiming that it is.

26:4-6 These seemingly contradictory proverbs are not contradicting each other at all. Firstly we must remember that there is a spiritual significance in all the Proverbs. They are not simply a collection of pithy sayings with an immediate surface meaning. Like Jesus’ parables they need to be ‘searched out’. There are three other occasions – all in Proverbs – where fool and folly occur together. Prov 13:16, 26:11 from which we can see that associating with a fools is unwise. Against this background we understand that ‘answering a fool according to his folly’ is tantamount to agreeing with him so he will see you as supporting his ideas. And answering him ‘not according to his folly’ is designed to show the fool that you are not supporting his folly. Fools will not listen so there is no benefit in trying to change his opinion. Rather one’s answer should be designed to highlight our position.

26:28 The one who lies is not simply stating untruths. Lying about another indicates an attitude of mind towards the one evil spoken of. Our innermost feelings for others are clearly seen by the way we miss represent them.

26:20 If only, when someone told us something that was damaging to others we would simply say that we did not want to know the gossip and were unwilling to pass the gossip on then the story would die. People would not be hurt and fellowship would be maintained.

“Answer not a fool according to his folly… Answer a fool according to his folly…”

So, which is it? Well, it’s both!

Verse 4 warns us against arguing with a fool. Proverbs, as already noted, gives ample descriptions of a fool, so they are not hard to identify.

Verse 5 tells us there are times a fool has to be addressed for the sake of others exposed to their foolishness giving them credence by our silence. To let a fool speak without reproof encourages him to remain wise in his own eyes and possibly gain credibility in the eyes of others.

I learned this lesson the hard way, and I was insulted by some really mean, deceitful, hypocritical folks. It is very hard to phantom the mentality of such folks, but they exist and they are out in full swing! It is very wise to learn this lesson, and when we do, it will spare us from a lot of pain and anxiety.

Reading 3: John 8

v.1-11 is one of the greatest lessons that we can have in forgiveness. Here Jesus forgives an act that was clearly worthy of death under the law. By comparison we each commit acts daily that are worthy of death under the law of sin that we have in our members, and yet we know that we are assured of forgiveness as long as our heart is right. This was surely the case here with this woman. Here Jesus, (v.7) in his dealings with the scribes and Pharisees is putting into practice the words from Prov.26 that we read above (v.4,5).

:6 The issue of Jesus writing on the ground has exercised the minds of Bible students for years. What did he write? We often ask. Well, like many before me I do not know either. However there are a number of interesting links with Jeremiah 17

:59 In saying that Jesus 'hid himself' we have a quotation from Isaiah 8:17 which is very telling. Jesus was not simply avoiding a problem. He was behaving appropriately toward those who like Ahaz, in Isaiah's day, had turned away from God.

8:23 Jesus, in saying 'Ye are from beneath' is harking back to his comments to Nicodemus (John 3:31). As Nicodemus was in the audience on this occasion he may well have seen that Jesus was making reference to what he had already said to him privately as recorded in John 3.

The scribes and Pharisees tried to tempt Jesus in the matter of the woman taken in adultery. They claimed that she was guilty under the Law and should be stoned. Had they administered the Law properly, they would have also brought the offending male (Lev 20:10). The Lord saw through their hypocrisy and confounded them with wisdom.

InJohn 8:56-59 Jesus stated that Abraham rejoiced to see Christ’s day, and he saw it, and was glad. Abraham had faith, real faith. By his faith he was able to understand about the Kingdom, and Christ Jesus as its King. This made so much sense to him that he was able to draw his last breath in faith – not having received the promises, but able to see “them afar off” (Heb 11:13).

8:6-8 In this section of verses we see that silence was louder than any words that our Master could have said. The frustration of the scribes and Pharisees must have been unimaginable as Jesus remained silent as they kept questioning him about the women's guilt. Even the answer that Jesus provided to the questioning was of such a nature that he did not make light of her sin. He did not set aside the law. One by one each one of the accusers left. They would have been aware that Jesus' answer was making reference to Deut 17:7. These scribes and Pharisees were acting in the capacity of witnesses and accusers. The sin of the woman was as nothing when compared to their perverseness.

The trap that the scribes and Pharisees set for Jesus involved his mother. Had Jesus consented to the guilt and, therefore, the stoning of the adulterous woman, He would have called His mother’s behaviour into question. Remember, that Mary was not yet married to Joseph when she became pregnant. In the eyes of Jesus’ accusers, she could only have become pregnant if she were unfaithful to her betrothed, Joseph (V.41).

It is ironic that the event concerning the adulterous woman took place in the treasury (v.20). The treasury (the place where the thirteen trumpet-shaped collection boxes were placed) was located in the Court of Women.

8:21 ‘whither I go ye cannot come’ puzzled the leaders and at least one disciple. It is phrase that Jesus has used before – John 7:34 and will use again - John 13:33 and is speaking of his glorification which those who are faithful will follow afterwards 13:36. May we be amongst those, like Peter, who will follow.

8:20 In saying ‘his hour was not yet come’ were part way through a theme using this phrase. It starts in John 2:4 and after being seen here we see that his hour finally came – John 12:23 and we see it is all to do with the glorification of the son.

8:29 Jesus’ confidence that God never left him ‘alone’ should also be our confidence. Not that we will never be in difficulty – Jesus was. But that God will not abandon us. Do we have that confidence or when things are not going smoothly do we question God’s involvement in our lives?

John 8:56 Jesus was able to say of Abraham that "he rejoiced to see my day and he saw it and was glad" because through the eye of his faith he saw in the ram caught by it's horns in the thicket, the sacrifice of the Lord's providing - the Lord Jesus Christ. Abraham's experience of the test of his faith enabled him to see beyond his day to the ministry of the Jesus. The Genesis record highlights for us the sight of Abraham.

Gen 22:4“on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place afar off.” God directed Abraham to the place where the sacrifice of his “only son” (verse 2) was to take place.

Gen 22:13 “Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked…”. Abraham saw the ram the sacrifice of the Lord’s providing. How glad he must have been to see this sacrifice provided.

Gen 22:14 “called the place Jehovah-jireh…in the mount of the Lord it shall be seen.”

Abraham had seen and understood that the Lord was to provide a sacrifice and would provide the one through whom all nations would ultimately be blessed. Like Isaac and Jacob and the faithful of all the ages, he saw the promises afar off (Heb 11:13).

8:13-14 The Pharisees probably thought they were on safe ground in saying that as Jesus bore witness of himself they could assert that his witness could not be relied on as the Law of Moses required more than one witness – Deut 17:6 etc. – However, as Jesus said, - verse 18 – he was not the only witness. He appealed to the witness of his Father – though the Jews chose to think Jesus was speaking of Joseph.

“And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery... Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him...”

A reader asks: “..."Incidentally, why wasn't the man involved in the adultery with this woman also hauled before our Lord on a charge of adultery - as he should have been according to Lev. 20:10?...”

My reply: It seems Christ wasn’t the only one being “set up” that day (cf. vv. 5-6). If the woman was taken in adultery, “in the very act,” this would mean the man had to have been caught too. According to Lev 20:10, they should have brought him too, but the very fact that the Scribes and Pharisees let him go was more hypocrisy on their part, as they were themselves spiritual adulterers and idolaters. The woman, the Scribes and Pharisees were all "caught in the act." Christ, in response to their deceitful query, did not condemn the woman, not because he would not have the law upheld, but because the men who boasted in the law, brought only the woman contrary to the law. It would seem to me they were more interested in "catching" Christ, than having the woman stoned.

“They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.”

An article in the Daily Mail reported that on January 22, 2015, a young woman accused of committing adultery was stoned. ISIS militants along with her father participated in the stoning. She begged, “Father, forgive me,” and he coldly replied, “Don’t call me father.” Pleading for her life, her father, having been humiliated by the actions of his daughter showed her no mercy, but rather was given the honours of throwing the biggest stone at her that killed her. What a tragic story of loveless legalism, especially since the perpetrators themselves were guilty of the same sins and other unmentionable atrocities!

Here in John 8, we have another woman caught in the act of adultery not by ISIS militants, but by the hypocritical religious Pharisees. According to the Law she was to be stoned, and like with the above incidence, where was the man? These loveless legalists wanted to see what Jesus would do, and what Jesus did was a rather unusual thing: twice he stooped down (vv. 6,8). It may be that he first wrote their names on the ground, and when he stooped down again, he wrote their sins beside their names. Even the greatest theological minds do not know for sure what Jesus wrote, but it is amazing how they all, feeling condemned, left the woman alone with Jesus.

Jesus saw this woman not for what she was, but for what she would become and forgave her. This is how he sees each and every one of us. When we stumble and fall, we cry out, “Father, forgive me,” and He will hear us. How privileged, how loved we are to receive forgiveness from such a merciful Father. Our Heavenly Father would never coldly deny us as His children and leave us to die in our sins. He will hear our repentant prayers and forgive us because we have been bought with a price - the precious blood of the Lamb.

8:33,39 Jesus did not dispute that the Jewish leaders were “Abraham’s seed” but when they claimed to be Abraham’s children Jesus objected making the point that if they were Abraham’s children they would behave like Abraham. We should be careful to appreciate that being followers of Jesus means that we have to live like him and not just claim to be one of his followers.

John 8:11Our kindness and compassion must balance our purity and zeal, or we are but "holy" monsters.Christ was the purest and most zealous of all men. He was also the most compassionate and loving and understanding toward the weak and the sinner.

To add to Sis. Valerie Mello's comment in 2015: in verse 7, Jesus states that only someone who was without sin could "cast the first stone."

The Law of Moses records in Deuteronomy 17:6-7 that the witnesses to any crime worthy of death (of which adultery was one, Lev 20:10 & Deut 22:23-24) were to be the first to throw a stone/rock in the process of stoning to death the perpetrator(s).

It is important to note that only one of the witnesses could throw this first stone/rock in order to commence the execution. As soon as one of the witnesses had thrown the first stone/rock, the rest of the crowd could then throw as many stones/rocks at the guilty one(s) as were necessary to ensure their death. Whilst sometimes carried out after stoning (Deuteronomy 21:22 CJB), death by hanging was mainly reserved for non-Jews.

In this incident recorded by John, not one of the ‘witnesses’ to the woman’s adultery ever threw that first stone at her, simply because they’d all walked away, condemned by their own consciences. This meant that no-one else—not even our Lord (as he wasn’t a witness), could start the execution process.

But why did our Lord go further and show mercy to this woman who was obviously caught “in flagrante delicto” i.e. “in the very act” of adultery? A comparison of Matt 10:6; 15:24; 18:11; Luke 19:10; John 17:12 and Heb 10:7-10 will provide the answer. These verses reveal an interesting (and often overlooked) aspect of our Heavenly Father’s dealings with fallen mankind.

What our Father commands is not always His will. For example: Yahweh commanded in Gen 6:13 that “the earth and all living creatures be destroyed”. Yet clearly this does not accord with Yahweh’s will as recorded in Gen 1:28“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth…” nor with Hab 2:14 “For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.” And this was the 'raison d'etre' for Yahweh creating man (and later woman) i.e. to manifest the Father's glory and character on the earth.

So our Lord did not condemn the woman because his mission was to fulfil his Father’s will (Psa 40:7) which was, as 2Pet 3:9 states: “The Lord is... ...longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”

Our Lord’s action in this incident highlight three vital lessons to us:

2) the need for us to follow the over-riding moral principle of applying both our Father’s justice in balance with His mercy (an example of which is found in James 2:13 “…mercy rejoiceth against judgment”) when it comes to judging others in such matters, rather than always and strictly following the letter of the law or 'thus saith the (sometimes poorly translated) words on the page' and in addition...

3) the combination of Matt 5:28, the rest of the Discourse on the Mount in chapters 5-7 and our Lord’s repeated condemnation of the Scribes & Pharisees in Matt 23. All these points & passages of Scripture highlight the need for every brother & sister to rigorously avoid behaving as a hypocrite (Gk. <5723> hupocrites—a “stage player” or “actor”) - a character trait that both Yahweh and His son find particularly obnoxious.